+++
+++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Joe Biden's Approval Rating in Idaho and Washington
By Samuel Stebbins, 24/7 Wall St. via The Center Square
With the 2024 presidential election less than a year and a half away, campaign season is heating up. In recent months, the field of Republican contenders vying for the top spot on the party's ticket next November has grown considerably. Meanwhile, since announcing plans to seek a second term in April 2023, President Joe Biden is the presumptive Democratic nominee - and as the incumbent candidate, voters' perception of his job performance could be a decisive factor in his bid for reelection.
When it comes to voter sentiment, Biden is facing an uphill battle. According to a nationwide Gallup poll, his job approval rating stands at 40%, only slightly higher than his lowest rating of 37% recorded in April 2023, but well below his all-time high of 57% from early 2021. Public opinion regarding the Biden administration is not uniform across the country, however, and in some states, the president is viewed far more favorably than in others.
Another poll conducted in the first quarter of 2023 by public opinion research company Morning Consult found that 49% of adults in Washington approve of how Biden is handling his job as president and 48% disapprove. In the same poll, 33% of adults in Idaho approve and 65% disapprove.
In the 2020 presidential election, Biden received 58.0% of the popular vote in Washington, his 10th best performance among states, and Donald Trump received 38.8%, the eighth smallest share for the former president. Biden received 33.1% of the popular vote in Idaho, his fifth worst performance among states, and Donald Trump received 63.9%, the fifth largest share for the former president.
All data on Biden's job approval rating is from Morning Consult. Data on the 2020 presidential election results by state is from The Cook Political Report, an independent, nonpartisan, political analysis newsletter.
Rank State
Adults who approve of Biden's job as president (%) Adults who disapprove of Biden's job as president (%) 2020 election winner Biden share of vote in 2020 (%) Trump share of vote in 2020 (%)
1 California 54 42 Biden 63.5 34.3
2 Hawaii 53 44 Biden 63.7 34.3
3 Maryland 52 44 Biden 65.4 32.2
4 Vermont 51 44 Biden 66.1 30.7
5 Massachusetts 50 46 Biden 65.6 32.1
6 New York 50 47 Biden 60.9 37.7
7 Illinois 49 48 Biden 57.5 40.6
8 Washington 49 48 Biden 58.0 38.8
9 Connecticut 49 48 Biden 59.3 39.2
10 Rhode Island 48 48 Biden 59.4 38.6
11 Delaware 46 50 Biden 58.7 39.8
12 Oregon 46 51 Biden 56.5 40.4
13 New Jersey 45 51 Biden 57.3 41.4
14 New Mexico 44 52 Biden 54.3 43.5
15 Virginia 44 53 Biden 54.1 44.0
16 Alaska 43 52 Trump 42.8 52.8
17 Georgia 43 54 Biden 49.5 49.3
18 Minnesota 43 54 Biden 52.4 45.3
19 Colorado 43 54 Biden 55.4 41.9
20 Wisconsin 42 55 Biden 49.4 48.8
21 New Hampshire 42 57 Biden 52.7 45.4
22 Nevada 41 55 Biden 50.1.47.7
23 Pennsylvania 41 56 Biden 50.0 48.8
24 Michigan 41 56 Biden 50.6 47.8
25 Arizona 40 57 Biden 49.4 49.1
26 Maine 40 57 Biden 53.1 44.0
27 Florida 39 57 Trump 47.9 51.2
28 North Carolina 39 58 Trump 48.6 49.9
29 Texas 38 58 Trump 46.5 52.1
30 Montana 38 59 Trump 40.5 56.9
31 Louisiana 37 59 Trump 39.9 58.5
32 Ohio 37 60 Trump 45.2 53.3
33 South Carolina 37 60 Trump 43.4 55.1
34 Mississippi 35 61 Trump 41.1 57.6
35 Kansas 35 62 Trump 41.6 56.2
36 Missouri 34 62 Trump 41.4 56.8
37 Tennessee 34 63 Trump 37.5 60.7
38 Indiana 34 63 Trump 41.0 57.0
39 Iowa 33 64 Trump 44.9 53.1
40 Idaho 33 65 Trump 33.1 63.9
41 South Dakota 33 65 Trump 35.6 61.8
42 Utah 32 65 Trump 37.6 58.1
43 Kentucky 31 66 Trump 36.2 62.1
44 Alabama 31 66 Trump 36.6 62.0
45 Nebraska 31 67 Trump 39.4 58.5
46 Oklahoma 30 67 Trump 32.3 65.4
47 Arkansas 29 67 Trump 34.8 62.4
48 Wyoming 27 71 Trump 26.6 69.9
49 North Dakota 25 71 Trump 31.8 65.1
50 West Virginia 25 73 Trump 29.7 68.6
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
DEROY MURDOCK: Fulton County DA’s Anti-Trump ‘Smoking Gun’ Is A Toy Pisto
Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis must be drooling.
In a dark day for America, Democrats made President Joe Biden’s chief political rival fly to their stronghold of Atlanta, surrender to law-enforcement officials, and get photographed and fingerprinted like a common criminal.
Consequently, Willis and her fellow Democrats now boast a mugshot of former President of the United States Donald J. Trump. They will deploy it in campaign ads from now until Armageddon. It probably already inhabits dart boards in the White House and the Democrat National Committee.
The next step in Trump’s persecution will be Willis’ Stalinesque show trial. Exhibit A will be Trump’s allegedly illegal phone call on January 2, 2021. America’s lying Left-wing media already have made this conversation notorious.
“In recorded call, Trump pressures Georgia official to ‘find’ votes to overturn election,” Reuters huffed in a headline the next day.
ABC News growled: “Trump demands Georgia secretary of state ‘find’ enough votes to hand him win.”
National Public Radio snarled on June 21, 2022: “Former President Donald Trump famously pressured Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a fellow Republican, to overturn the state’s presidential election result in a January 2021 phone call that lasted more than an hour.”
Willis, these “news” outlets, and other Trump haters want Americans to believe that Trump told Raffensperger, “I want you to fabricate 11,780 votes” or less nefariously, “I want you to find me 11,780 votes.” (RELATED: ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Trump’s Persecution Is An Affront To Biblical Justice)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This Political Prosecution Scheme Is Going To Backfire HardBy Kurt Schlichter
++++
Gold Star Families Accuse Biden Of Covering Up Evidence That Kabul Bombing Was Preventable
By Sarah Arnold
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In a previous memo I wrote about basically the two types of progressives. Those driven by nutty ideology and those purposely desirous of seeking to destroy America because our Constitutional freedoms are deemed a threat to their more radical Communistic views and dictatorial rule.
The attached somewhat validates my thinking:
+++
Progressive Prejudice Against the Judiciary
Now the left goes after conferences attended by conservative judges—and our columnist Kimberley Strassel.
By The Editorial Board
Judges are apparently supposed to live monastic existences. And whatever they do, they shouldn’t stay current on the law. At least that’s the implication from the latest progressive attack on conservative jurists.
The leftwing outfit Fix the Court is at it again, this time in a letter to Judge Roslynn Mauskopf, Secretary of the Judicial Conference that administers the federal courts. The Aug. 10 complaint says that dozens of Republican-appointed appellate judges have reported participating in educational events sponsored by the likes of the Law & Economics Center at the Antonin Scalia Law School and the Judicial Education Institute. Oh, no, better call the cops.
The Judicial Conference’s ethics guidelines require, among other things, that judges disclose when private organizations pay more than $480 for their travel, food, lodging and other expenses for attending educational-related programs. Fix the Court perused these disclosures and didn’t like what it found.
Seminars are “becoming more overtly ideological,” Fix the Court says. By ideological, it means intellectual. The outfit complains they are often held at high-end hotels in remote locations. This “appears inconsistent with Canon 2 of the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges, which states, ‘A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety in all activities.’”
Fix the Court doesn’t elaborate on the impropriety. But it points to a colloquium sponsored by the Scalia Law School at a “resort” in Girdwood, Alaska. The daily rates there are about the same as at an Embassy Suites in Washington, D.C. Yet the letter grouses that “it’s unclear why this symposium had to be conducted in the 49th state.”
Perhaps because judges and legal scholars enjoy the great outdoors. Where are they supposed to meet? How about a practicum in San Francisco’s open-air drug markets about the destructive impact of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’s rulings that read a right to vagrancy into the Constitution?
Fix the Court also complains that the Alaska event featured our columnist Kimberley Strassel, “who unironically gave a talk titled ‘Media Attacks on Judges and the Campaign to Delegitimize the Judiciary’ just months after referring to Justices [Elena] Kagan and [Sonia] Sotomayor as ‘radical judges.’”
Fix the Court linked to a video of Ms. Strassel on “WSJ at Large” after Justice Stephen Breyer announced his retirement. She didn’t call Justices Kagan or Sotomayor radical. She merely said a more radical liberal block might embolden conservative Justices. Her analysis is a far cry from the baseless campaign to delegitimize conservative Justices that Fix the Court has been leading.
It’s notable that Fix the Court singles out Republican-appointed judges, as if Democratic-appointed judges have never attended seminars at nice hotels. “But there’s nice, and then there’s nice,” the outfit writes. Do progressives have a judicial balancing test to determine when hotels are too nice?
Fix the Court also takes aim at seminars focusing on originalism, the judicial philosophy of interpreting the U.S. Constitution based on its original meaning. “With all of this method’s practitioners on one side of the ideological divide, we question whether such an event comports with ethical norms and the goals of legal education,” the letter says.
Originalists aren’t a secret society, and originalism doesn’t result in pre-ordained outcomes, as the different opinions by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, among others, have made clear. Even liberal judges employ the method from time to time in their opinions, even if they come to different outcomes.
Fix the Court claims to be nonpartisan, yet its ethics complaints against judges swing one way. Its latest salvo is a partisan drive-by strafing that the Judicial Conference would do a public service by ignoring.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
How Israel Can Solve Its Gaza Problem
by Yossi Kuperwasser
Middle East Quarterly
Damage in Holon where three were injured by a rocket attack from Gaza. Winning decisively for Israel requires disarming Hamas and prohibiting its rearmament.
Israel has, in recent years, been living with a dangerous phenomenon, to which it has wrongly become accustomed, without any real debate as to its advisability. Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) are Palestinian terror organizations committed to annihilating Israel, controlling Gaza, and threatening to launch attacks at times of their choosing if Jerusalem does not act as they demand. They use Gaza's civilian population as human shields to prevent the Israelis from hitting their military infrastructure.
In response, Jerusalem has defined its goals vis-à-vis Gaza as achieving the longest possible intervals of relative calm between major eruptions of violence; in other words, it does not challenge Hamas's ability to attack Israel. The Israeli government regards Gaza as a de facto state where Hamas is accountable for the use of force, though from time to time, in 2019 and 2022, it preferred to address the PIJ threat directly.
Continue reading the full article>
Brig. Gen. (Res) Yossi Kuperwasser is an Israeli intelligence and security expert. Formerly, Kuperwasser served as the head of the research division in the Israel Defence Force Military Intelligence division and Director General of the Israel Ministry of Strategic Affairs. Kuperwasser is currently a Head of the Israeli Intelligence Methodology Research Institute and a Senior Project Manager at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs specializing in the security dimensions of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.
Related Topics: Gaza, Israel & Zionism, Palestinians | Yossi Kuperwasser | Summer 2023 MEQ
This text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete and accurate information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL.
The Middle East Forum, an activist think tank, deals with the Middle East, Islamism, U.S. foreign policy, and related topics, urging bold measures to protect Americans and their allies. Pursuing its goals via intellectual, operational, and philanthropic means, the Forum recurrently has policy ideas adopted by the U.S. government.
And:
Today (8/28) I watched "War Machine" starring Brad Pitt. It is probably one of the best and most authentic movies about the Afghanistan War to come out of Hollywood.
Were I president, the two things I would ask of my military advisers
would be: 1. are you willing to tell me your unvarnished view and 2. if we go to war is it a winnable one.
Ever since Kissinger decided it would be acceptable not to win in Viet Nam, America no longer win's wars. Wars are not the kind Patton fought. They are far more complex and the movie certainly made that a focal point of the message.
The current Ukrainian War, may not be winnable, per se, but if Biden had any common sense and if he was going to actually equip them he would not drag doing so. He would make time a priority knowing the Ukrainians may not be capable of quickly learning how to use more sophisticated armament but, at least, had the will.
Politicians never seem to care about wasting money because it is not their's and they have always been able to resort to deficit spending because America has been able to off load our bonds. Those days are quickly coming to an end but our politicians seem not to care about that fact.
Republicans and Democrats are both guilty of spending excessively. Democrats do it to for social purposes and to gain votes and Republicans to allegedly protect our country and fatten the coffers of corporations that make war materiel. Both end up as self-serving activities. Eisenhower warned us as he left office.
Finally,
Iran is way over their skis but not, perhaps, as long as Biden is president. Every foreign policy decision he has made has been a bust.
+++
Iran boasts new submarines, demands US leave Syria - analysis
Tehran’s comments appear to be a warning to the US that Iran could encourage proxy groups to continue to target Americans in Syria.
A new generation of Ghadir midget submarines and Fateh submarines will be made for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ navy, Iran said Monday.
Tehran also slammed the “illegal presence of the US in Syria” in statements by Foreign Ministry spokesman Nasser Kanaani on Monday at a weekly briefing.
Iran made many comments about the Mideast region. It boasted of working on improving ties with Bahrain and Egypt and slammed continued US sanctions.
The Iranian navy is historically quite small, but Iran does operate several submarines. Iran has several Russian submarines it has used since the 1990s, according to naval expert H. I Sutton. Iran also constructed midget submarines, which it calls the Ghadir. It also has the 157-foot Fateh class of submarines.
The Iranians intend to equip the IRGC with both Ghadir and Fateh submarines, according to the report. This is supposed to expand Iran’s power in the Persian Gulf.
The US recently appointed a new commander for US anti-ISIS forces. US forces have facilities in Erbil and also in Syria.
“The presence of the US military and the military in Syrian territory is completely illegal,” Iran said Monday. “The Syrian government has not invited the American military, and the official request of the Syrian government is the withdrawal of the American military forces from the territory of this country as soon as possible.”
Iran warns it could encourage attacks on US troops in Syria
Tehran’s comments appear to be a warning to the US that Iran could encourage proxy groups to continue to target Americans in Syria. The Iranian Foreign Ministry says the US is the “source” of instability in Syria.
“We consider the US presence in the region to be contrary to regional peace,” Iran said. “This presence has always disturbed peace.”
Iran is also working with Iraq to facilitate a large pilgrimage this month with pilgrims who are marking Arbaeen, the Shi’ite event. This will involve helping hundreds of thousands of pilgrims, and it is an important event for Iran. Iran’s government generally backs Shi’ites throughout the Middle East.
In addition, Iran says it has recently held talks with Qatar about the lifting of sanctions. This appears to be part of the larger discussions Qatar has had with Oman and the West. The Iranian Foreign Ministry praised a recent agreement with the US in which Iran released several prisoners in what Tehran says was an “exchange.”
“For us, the release of Iranian prisoners who have been cruelly taken hostage is a priority,” Iran said. “We made the exchange agreement with the prisoners. Along with it, we followed up on the unblocking of Iran’s assets. In this direction, fortunately, we are witnessing the progress of the work.”
Iran’s comments reveal its regional agenda. It wants Syria to be less isolated, it is working on diplomatic ties with Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Egypt, and it is pressing its demands in Iraq and Syria to remove critics, dissidents, and US forces.
The overall trend is clear: Iran believes it is on a winning streak, and it feels confident in the discussions of numerous files in the region.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The monster consumes one at a time:
+++
The Night Watchman
Once upon a time the government had a vast scrap yard in the middle of a desert.
Congress said, "Someone may steal from it at night." So they created a night watchman position and hired a person for the job.
Then Congress said, "How does the watchman do his job without instruction?" So they created a planning department and hired two people, one person to write the instructions, and one person to do time studies
Then Congress said, "How will we know the night watchman is doing the tasks correctly?" So they created a Quality Control department and hired two people. One was to do the studies and one was to write the reports.
Then Congress said, "How are these people going to get paid?" So they created two positions: a time keeper and a payroll officer and hired two people.
Then Congress said, "Who will be accountable for all of these people?" So they created an administrative section and hired three people, an Administrative Officer, Assistant Administrative Officer, and a Legal Secretary.
Then Congress said, "We have had this command in operation for one year and we are $918,000 over budget, we must cut back." So they laid off the night watchman.
NOW slowly, let it sink in. Quietly, we go like sheep to slaughter. Does anybody remember the reason given for the establishment of the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY during the Carter Administration?Anybody? Anything? Anyone? No? Didn't think so!
Bottom line is, we've spent several hundred billion dollars in support of an agency, the reason for which very few people who read this can remember!
It was very simple... and at the time, everybody thought it very appropriate.
The Department of Energy was instituted on 8/04/1977, TO LESSEN OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL.
Hey, pretty efficient, huh???
AND NOW IT'S 2022 -- 45 YEARS LATER -- AND THE BUDGET FOR THIS "NECESSARY"DEPARTMENT IS AT $242 BILLION A YEAR. IT HAS 16,000 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AND APPROXIMATELY 100,000 CONTRACT EMPLOYEES; AND LOOK AT THE JOB IT HAS DONE!
(THIS IS WHERE YOU SLAP YOUR FOREHEAD AND SAY, "WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?") 34 years ago 30% of our oil consumption was foreign imports. Today 43% of our oil consumption is foreign imports.
Ah, yes -- good old Federal bureaucracy.
NOW, WE HAVE TURNED OVER THE BANKING SYSTEM, HEALTH CARE, AND THE AUTO INDUSTRY TO THE SAME GOVERNMENT? What can possibly go wrong?
More than 50% of Americans work for the government???????
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The poignancy and power of Oliver Anthony's ballad was never political
By Salena Zito
FARMVILLE-
American songwriting, whether it is folk, rock, or country, has a long history of featuring lyrics and music about the things that inspire the writers.
In 1970, after one singer had been performing onstage for only a few months, Chicago Sun-Times film critic Roger Ebert came across him quite by accident.
And the experience floored him.
Ebert recalled in a column years later, “Through no wisdom of my own but out of sheer blind luck, I walked into the Fifth Peg, a folk club on West Armitage, one night in 1970 and heard a mailman from Westchester singing.”
That mailman was the late, quirky, and wildly talented John Prine, who was performing his own songs that night and would go on to become a raspy-voiced country-folk legend. Prine's brilliant lyrics spoke from experience ranging from tender and affecting to both humorous and angry.
“Prine’s stuff is pure Proustian existentialism. Midwestern mind trips to the nth degree. And he writes beautiful songs,” Bob Dylan wrote of Prine while listing his favorite songwriters.
And 50 years ago, a still somewhat unknown Bruce Springsteen’s lyrics and music were heralded as “representing an enigma” through his “spew of his hard edge lyrics, sick with alienation and multi faceted imagery” by Philadelphia Daily News reporter Jonathan Takiff after he saw him perform at the Main Point in his home state of New Jersey.
Neither of the reviews for either man mentioned politics; it was about the music, the connection the lyrics made with the people in the room and how the audience, in turn, enthusiastically responded to it.
It was a different time. It was arguably a better time.
Several weeks ago, Oliver Anthony, another young musician with complex life experiences, talent, and a story to tell, burst onto the music scene with his ballad “Rich Men North of Richmond.”
It was a story — because that is what good songs are, good storytelling — that touched a lot of people for a number of wildly different reasons. It was in the pain for some, for others it was in the feeling of abandonment from those in power, but for the most part it was in the daily struggles of making ends meet and never finding a way to move up and out.
“I've been sellin' my soul, workin' all day
Overtime hours for bulls*** pay
So I can sit out here and waste my life away
Drag back home and drown my troubles away
It's a damn shame what the world's gotten to
For people like me and people like you
Wish I could just wake up and it not be true
But it is, oh, it is.”
It was also in his gutting delivery.
The ballad caught on like wildfire — and like clockwork and the parasite that politics is, the political world tried to co-op him and his song. The Right began saying he is one of them, and the Left and the media are saying of course he is and then called it racist.
If you were a person who has lived the pain Anthony wrote about in "Rich Men North of Richmond," you knew immediately it was never about the Right or the Left: People like Anthony and the thousands of people I have listened to and written about throughout my career don’t think that way. They never did. They don’t view the world through a Left/Right prism. Instead, oftentimes it is viewed from the outside looking in.
Click for the full story
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Save the Rule of Law By Destroying It?
By Victor Davis Hanson
Posted By Ruth King
Some truths are so staggering in their ramifications that Americans simply shrug and tune them out as if strangers in a strange land.
Is their current bewilderment because modernist America is unrecognizable —a nonexistent border, downtown homeless juxtaposed to hipster professional elites, DEI racial essentialism, cities reverting to precivilizational wastelands, millions exiting blue states to red, an FBI and DOJ gone rogue, the normalization of violent theft and assault, biologically born men sandbagging women’s sports and their locker room privacy?
We are reaching the point where the once unbelievable has become the banal, as a single generation has done its best to undo the work of a prior 12 generations. Consider the following:
Three leftwing prosecutors are criminalizing politics with more than 90 simultaneous indictments of Donald Trump, the ex-president and currently the leading Republican primary candidate. While New York prosecutor Letitia James is hounding Trump with a $250 million state lawsuit against the Trump organization and family, on the pretense of supposedly Trump overvaluing his real estate and filing inaccurate financial statements.
Is there any Mafia don, mass murderer, or terrorist who has faced so many indictments or suits in so many jurisdictions at almost the same time?
The prosecutors’ immediate lawfare agendas seem transparent enough. They wish to bankrupt candidate Trump with endless legal costs, and humiliate him with his mugshot blasted over the Internet, and put endless Lilliputian legal ropes over a shackled candidate Gulliver, and inflate the ego and agendas of local prosecutors, and purportedly earn Trump empathy enough to win the nomination only to be hemorrhaged with still more indictments, gag orders, and court appearances to bleed him out in the general election.
Americans ask themselves questions whose answers are never given. Why are all these Trump prosecutors leftwing or with Democratic connections?
Would any of the 90 something indictments for “crimes” of years past have been lodged against a citizen Trump who had retired from politics?
Why are these indictments of alleged wrongdoing of years ago now in summer 2023 suddenly both being synchronized in leftwing jurisdictions of New York, Washington, Miami, and Atlanta with the beginning of the 2024 election cycle?
Are any of the indictments against Trump also applicable to others?
Alvin Bragg’s charge of campaign finance violations (Hillary Clinton, 2016)?
Jack Smith’s allegations of encouraging mass civil unrest (Kamala Harris, 2020)?
Illegally removing and possessing classified federal documents (Joe Biden 2009-2022)?
Letitia James’s lawsuit alleging financial irregularities and fraud (Al Sharpton 2009-2014)?
Fani Willis’s claim that Trump was seeking to sabotage the constitutional duties of state electors (Martin Sheen, and an array of B-list Hollywood actors, 2016) and colluding to interfere with an election (Fani Willis 2003-4)?
Will any losing Republican candidate in a contested election any longer question the integrity of questionable balloting—in the manner of Vice President Al Gore in 2000, Sen. Barbara Boxer and 32 Democratic congressional representatives in 2004, candidate Jill Stein or Hillary Clinton in 2016, or Stacey Abrams 2018—and thereby risk financially and career-crimpling indictments?
Will conservative district attorneys in places like Wyoming, Alabama, or West Virginia now seek to indict a Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or Gavin Newsom to earn notoriety, to weaken the opposing party, and to leapfrog to higher office in the manner that we should expect a Fani Willis or Alvin Bragg to be currently planning?
When Republicans retake the Congress and White House, will they begin indicting all the weaponized prosecutors who colluded to exempt a grifting Hunter Biden for five years? Will they try Joe Biden as a private citizen for his prior corruption over the last 15 years?
Why would Donald Trump believe the 2020 election was “rigged?” Was he cribbing that belief from liberal journalist Molly Ball’s braggadocious 2021 Time essay? After all, she outlined what she called a leftwing “cabal” and “conspiracy” to change voting laws, turn on/turn off the 2020 Antifa/BLM street protests, absorb the work of registrars, and suppress unwelcome social media news.
Was it more morally suspect to question the ethics surrounding the election year 2020 or for Mark Zuckerberg to infuse $419 million to absorb in asymmetrical fashion the work of the registrars in key swing precincts?
A Cardboard Cutout President
We are witnessing the daily deterioration of President Biden to the point that caricature and jokes about his senility are no longer funny. He is not just an embarrassment but becoming an existential danger to the country. Does anyone believe that in a national crisis over Taiwan or nuclear escalation in Ukraine, Joe Biden would or could make the final decision?
Biden cannot finish a teleprompter sentence without slurring his words, losing his place, or screaming and whispering in incoherent fashion. If that is his public persona, what he is like in private sessions of governance?
He spontaneously both shouts angrily and creepily whispers for effect. Moving a lightweight aluminum beach chair becomes a Herculean task.
In almost every impromptu speech Biden flat-out lies or spins self-serving autobiographical fantasies—often in the midst of foreign dignitaries, grieving families, and refugees from devastating natural disasters.
Biden often does not know where he is on stage or where he is to enter or exit. He is one fall from oblivion.
Not since Woodrow Wilson’s final year in office, has any president simply been unable to fulfill his duties, both physically and cognitively.
Or perhaps the country is in the same position as when an ailing Franklin Roosevelt in late 1944 was deemed just hale enough to get elected and continue Democratic control of the White House, but deemed not healthy enough to finish his first year in office—necessitating the rapid removal from the ticket of the socialist Vice President—and an otherwise likely 1945 President—Henry Wallace.
Yet there has been almost no serious speculation in Congress or among the cabinet about invoking the 25th Amendment. This silence is doubly strange given the Left’s former fixation between 2017-21 with removing Trump by any means possible—including invoking the 25th Amendment.
That silly effort led to the surreal—the acting FBI director Andrew McCabe and the deputy attorney general Rod J. Rosenstein scheming to wiretap Trump in private conversations to reveal his supposed craziness–or the Congress dragging in an incompetent Yale psychiatrist to testify that at a distance she had diagnosed Trump as demented.
Do we recall ex-Pentagon officials and officers talking openly about a military coup to remove the supposedly touched commander in chief?
Our Chairman of the Joint Chiefs contacted the head of the People’s Liberation Army to warn him that Trump might be unhinged. So is Gen. Mark Milley now making yet another call to Gen. Li Zuocheng of the People’s Liberation Army to warn him that Joe Biden is dangerously disturbed?
It is precisely that entire cast of characters who now sit mum as Joe Biden believes we are fighting in Iraq against the Russians or that his late son Beau was killed in action in Iraq, or it is impossible to square the tens of millions of dollars that flowed from abroad to the Biden accounts with any concrete expertise rendered or income reported as taxable.
Is the tolerance of Biden’s senescence because his blank stares and mental confusion prove useful to the Left by exempting the president from offering any defense of his mostly defenseless policies or defending his absurd claims to know nothing of the Biden family grifting operations that were predicated on his own offices?
Or do the puppeteers, the Obamas, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and the hard leftists of the party find a non-compos mentis Biden mannequin a useful veneer in pushing through their extreme agendas? Or does the media call the shots, especially after they propelled a basement bound Biden to the White House?
Mainstreaming Corruption
There have been a few corrupt presidents in our past, who (as in the case of Lyndon Johnson) left office far richer than when they entered or were surrounded by rogues (Grant and Harding) or were masters of leveraging and grifting long-term contracts and networks in their lame duck tenures to ensure their impending multimillionaire status the day they left office (the Clintons and Obamas).
But never in memory has an entire extended presidential family been involved in selling influence for millions of dollars in quid pro quo lucre—the vast majority of such ill-gotten gains likely untaxed, by being channeled through sham companies, foreign deposits, fake names and alias email accounts.
Never has a corrupt presidential family itself offered so much proof of its own guilt. Do the Democrats have any idea of the smelly Biden albatross hanging about their collective necks?
How much longer can they continue to dismiss the communications on the Hunter Biden laptop?
Or the testimonies of IRS whistleblowers?
Or the assertions of Biden family business associates?
Or the statements of relevant Ukrainian oligarchs?
Or the latest assertions of Viktor Shokin?
Or the extraordinary efforts of the Bidens to stonewall subpoenaed documents, use fake names and shadow email accounts, compromise federal prosecutors, appoint sham special counsels, and use media toadies to the point of embarrassment to hide the ugly truth?
In sum, what were the Bidens so afraid of that prompted them to corrupt the DOJ and FBI to stonewall any discussion of the huge cash infusions that came from abroad into their family coffers?
Americans have impeached or nearly impeached presidents before for abuse of power, lying under oath, or supposedly using government to pursue their own personal agendas or harass their enemies.
But never has a president been so clearly compromised by bribery from shady foreign government-related grandees in expectation of favorable treatment.
In other words, there is growing evidence that Joe and Hunter Biden, and likely Jim Biden as well, made millions of dollars on the hopes that then Vice President Biden, and perhaps one day a future president Biden, would alter or compromise U.S. foreign policy on the expectation of getting rich.
The State Department’s Ukraine team deemed Viktor Shokin making progress in rooting out corruption. So why did Joe Biden without consultation fire him? Did Biden put his own financial interests above the country’s—in a fashion that the Founders worried was impeachable “treason?”
If the current investigations are not halted or compromised, we may soon learn why the Constitution explicitly specified bribery and treason as an ironclad cause for impeachment.
Can Americans even comprehend that they have elected a dishonest man to the presidency who is protected by his own senility, his decades-long everyman construct of ol’ Joe Biden from Scranton, his usefulness as a prop to the radical leftwing agenda, and the defensive and offensive weaponization of the criminal justice system?
Can Americans digest that instead of campaigning against Donald Trump, outdebating him, outspending him, and outfoxing him, their government must unleash kindred prosecutors to destroy Trump by blowing up the entire tradition of blind American jurisprudence?
Are the media and left claiming that to save the rule of law from Trump, they must first destroy it?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment